HHS Implements Controversial Workforce Reduction Amid Legal Challenges

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has begun implementing a contentious reduction in force (RIF) following a Supreme Court decision that lifted a lower court's block on the layoffs. This move marks a significant development in the ongoing restructuring of the agency under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s leadership.

Supreme Court Ruling Paves Way for Layoffs

On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court lifted a block on federal layoffs that had been imposed by a California district court on May 22. This decision allows HHS to proceed with a portion of its planned workforce reduction, despite ongoing legal challenges.

The ruling was not unanimous, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. She argued that the Supreme Court lacked sufficient on-the-ground knowledge to override the lower court's findings. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, while agreeing to lift the block, emphasized that the district court remains free to consider whether the layoffs comply with the law.

Scope and Impact of the Reduction in Force

HHS initiated the layoff process on July 14, 2025, sending termination emails to affected employees. The agency has not disclosed the exact number of employees receiving these notices, but the action is part of a larger plan announced on March 27 to cut the agency's workforce by 10,000 employees.

Secretary Kennedy had previously claimed that 20% of the initial 10,000 RIF notices were sent in error, leading to the reinstatement of 450 employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in early June. Many employees who received RIF notices were placed on administrative leave, with some barred from entering their workplaces.

Legal Challenges and Exceptions

The implementation of the RIF is not without its legal complications. A separate case, New York v. Kennedy, has resulted in a temporary restraining order issued on July 1, protecting certain employees from termination. This order primarily affects staff from the CDC, the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, the HHS's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, and the Administration for Children and Families' Office of Head Start.

The plaintiffs in New York v. Kennedy include attorneys general from 19 states, signaling widespread concern over the restructuring's potential impact on public health and social services.

Political Reactions and Future Implications

Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Co., the ranking member of the Energy & Commerce Health Subcommittee, has strongly criticized the Supreme Court's decision. In a July 15 statement, she warned that allowing these mass layoffs sets a dangerous precedent, particularly as litigation regarding the president's authority to unilaterally dismantle agencies is still pending.

DeGette further commented on the potential consequences of the layoffs, stating, "The only winners from these layoffs are China and measles. Donald Trump and RFK Jr. are creating a void in global leadership while abandoning the health challenges of our time."

As HHS moves forward with its workforce reduction, the full impact on public health initiatives, research programs, and regulatory oversight remains to be seen. The ongoing legal challenges and political debate surrounding these actions suggest that the restructuring of HHS will continue to be a contentious issue in the coming months.